Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.
See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
===============================================================
hat tip to to Bob Ferguson, SPPI
UPDATE: I’ve added this poll:
*snap*
Obviously these guys aren’t “real” climate scientists…..only “rocket scientists”… 😉
…IOW, they don’t understand the complexities of the blah…blah…blah……
I wonder just how he defines “tremendous resources”
Come on guys. Give Hansen a little more time and the empirical evidence will appear ,… out of nowhere … and suddenly be warmer today and colder in the past.
Bunch of retired NASA engineers and scientists. Bah! What do they know? I mean, except how to rigorously apply a disciplined methodology and careful scientific thought to incomplete data to make insanely difficult missions work. /sarc
It’s about time!
Bravo to these brave men and women ! I’ve considered NASA and GISS joke organizations for years now and never take anything they say about climate seriously. If they want to rehabilitate their credibility they should fire Hansen.
You know they’ll just say “and look – not a climate scientist in the bunch”.
Rocket scientists vs. Climate scientists.
Can you imagine Hansen in charge of launch control?
“I have become Prostelyzer, Destroyer of Science”
— James Hansen, Megalomanic Extraordinaire
Maybe this will start the door opening for Hansen to leave but since his noble leader does not want AGW to go away,he probably will stay. ALAS.
With hundreds of well-known climate scientists …declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts … it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
Who?
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward.
Correction: “…extreme advocacy for an unproven HYPOTHESIS.”
Huh! I thought it was already happening in frightening slow motion. Hansen’s name and reputation will go down in history as a scaremonger who shamed his name, institution, and no one will ever believe a single word GISS has to say on today’s weather let alone the climate.
Talk about a list of scientific / engineering heavy hitters …
A reminder – Harrison Schmitt is on the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute, so some people might consider him tainted. Personally, after talking with him for a while at the Chicago ICCC, he’s managed to remain a very personable, and (dare I say it) “down to Earth” demeanor. He’s also the only geologist to reach the Moon, and geologists have a much better “world view” about the impacts of climate change than people from any other branch of science.
So, this is going to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. I heard Dr. Hansen talk at a Mensa Colloquium a few years ago, he was careful to he was speaking as a private citizen. I’m tempted to complain to Bolden for every news media piece that doesn’t make that clear, e.g. the recent stories in the news about Hansen and his lecture at Edinburgh. It should be Hansen’s responsibilty to make sure the new media are corrected about that, and infringements should be brought to NASA’s attention.
The world is waking up, one rocket scientist at a time. Long live the slide rule.
Yeah, but how many are climate scientists? /SARC
The climate scientists are in a feeding frenzy from the public teat.
Duke Kraft Cunningham Schmitt Kerwin Worden…the list is going to hurt many, many people.
Wait now for the Bad Astronomer to poo-poo them one by one. Moon hoaxers will rejoice.
to Mark Bofill , you say:
” Bunch of retired NASA engineers and scientists. Bah! ”
Think think think, Mark.
Why do you not wonder howcome so many engeneers and scientists happen to speak out only when they are retired??
Think!
The fact that peoble wait until after retirement to speak out should us all even more concerned of what is going on in climate “scence”.
This proves it,
To warming alarmists skepticism IS rocket science.
The Weather Clown has been busy destroying actual thermometer readings for decades. Actual readings may be harder to find than one might think. Remember that NIWA (New Zealand) only got caught when they were unaware that the national library had a compilation of all old weather data. Until that point NIWA provided altered data as original.
henrythethird says: “Can you imagine Hansen in charge of launch control?”
Well it goes something like this with people like these as astronauts:
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncBSOyte6lA ]
It’s about time the honest scientists, engineers and others at NASA and GISS speak up against the blatant fraud being perpetrated on US citizens via global warming propoganda. I do think they may be too late, though. They should’ve done this years ago instead of waiting for the scrutiny to fade.
There is no question that NASA and GISS deserve a thorough house cleaning, starting at the top. Ditto EPA of course.
However, the electorate will return Pres. Obama and a Dem house due to the rediculous nature of Rommney running on tax breaks for the rich when he pays less income tax as a percentage than probably his hair stylist.
Thus this letter from the NASA allumni is the only way to address the issue of bad science. The signataries must now step into the media spotlight and make good science an issue during this election. Only then will Pres. Obama slow his carbon agenda. There is no hope of him seeing the light and abandoning it, after all, it is a new religion for many.
Too little too late.
It has made me very sad to watch NASA throw its reputation away over this nonsense.
I dreamed of working there as a kid – and I would now beg my own kids to stay well clear of it if such an opportunity arose.
I’m afraid there will be no going back from this – for them or the Royal Society.
Future pronouncements are valueless.
How did they ever let this happen?
Of all the unmitigated gall…
These people are former NASA “employees” and quite obviously out of the loop and uninformed.
Their letter has absolutely nothing to do with the Commander- In- Chief’s new mission for NASA: reaching out to the Muslim World.
/
just to point out the obvious. NASA has had its space exploration wings clipped. NASA and GISS are getting grants for Climate Change studies. Where is the money? Pay me an hundred thou a year and I’ll produce a scientific paper that says that the monkeys are causing climate change, if that’s what you want to hear.
The poll looks tight between the retirement supporters and the keep him on. I voted to keep him on.
Hansen will just say that they are, ‘the wrong stuff!’
Bwaaaa!! (sorry… I couldn’t help it)
I knew it was only a matter of time before REAL scientists would start to take a stand against this CAGW charade.
This trickle of brave scientists will soon turn into a torrent, and eventually it will be a race across academia of who in their department were the first to express serious doubt on this awful CAGW *sigh*ence.
I’m going to take the time to send many of the signatories of this letter to Bolden an e-mail thanking them for their courage.
I am one who would join the sentiment of, “with my taxes, I purchase civilization”.
However, I am not okay with paying this man’s bills.
So while I wanted to click keep him going, I say skip the watch, and give him a boot in the behind on the way out the door. He obviously will not stop spouting nonsense once (if) removed from his position at NASA – but I think it would do a lot to help discredit him and the entire movement, if the original warmist himself was sacked for his lies and abuse of power.
All that said, this just made my whole week 😀
Oh Dear. Sounds like Mr Hansen should not have travelled to Scotland, because the rebels are raising Cain, while he’s out of the country. Very medieval stuff really. No doubt, it’ll reinforce both his martyrdom for the cause and his messianic complex.
Pointman
Fire somebody for being wrong?
Hell no!
That’s a warmist tactic.
A voice of dissent is always needed. We might think we’re right, we might actually even be right, but we cannot know we’re right unless we’ve heard and considered every alternate argument.
HEROES! These are my heroes. Those men and women who put us in space. Welcome home.
What, no Oliver Manual…what gives?
What a novel idea! Let the data lead, not the models. The only thing surprising is that it took them so long to ask that question.
I think this leter comes from Heartland too LOL
REPLY: No, it doesn’t and you’re an idiot for suggesting it does – Anthony
It’s about time some heroes stepped up to help out when emprical data alone is losing the battle to illogic and policy drift. Looking on the bright side, at least all that massive computer data leak from NASA is just giving junk info to the pirates and spies–oh except for that three-stage nuclear- capable missile about to be fired from North Korea.
Wait fo the documentary on the History channel.
The rise and fall of NASA from Redstone rocket to Keystone pipeline.
This is excellent. Things are opening up at last. What a relief to see a story like this.
NASA should not worry about losing credibility because of Hanson and Schmidt. They lost it when they had 8 years to replace the shuttle (the span of time from the mandate to get to the moon and achieving the goal spanned), came up with something that looked like the Apollo moon rocket and then could not pull it off.
I will admit it is embarrising that Hanson and Schmidt don’t seem to like satellite data much, preferring old terrestial instruments in constant need of correction. As far as the “tremendous resources” Hanson acuses skeptics like these of having, he has a point. These people are retired and no longer have to rely on government grants for support to make ends meet so they no longer have to hew to a narrative. They are free to say what they think.
good for them. Now I wonder if any of this will ever be covered by the Mainstream Media….Not
Mr. Green “skyrocket” himself is still in charge! The EPA continues to kill jobs while the DOE continues to make fake jobs. It will take many years to recover from the damage done to the U.S. economy if a regime change is made in the next election. The damage will continue if no change is made.
“It’s time for a register of interests for science academics”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/10/register-of-interests-science-academics
“Researchers can be as transparent about who funded their work as chefs are about rats behind the fridge, says Brian Deer”
In the Guardian
The letter should have been sent to mainstream media, as it will have no effect, since the Heads of NASA will throw it in the wastepaper basket. I think that we will find that mainstream politicians and parties, Universities and even prominent warmist climate scientists will start avoiding the AGW issue which will completely but discreetly disappear over time over the next 2 to 3 years. In the end its was ONLY the actual temp data that did it/will do it oops. We will then be left with Governments green agendas, Greenpeace etc… fighting about alternate energy sources, pollution, overpopulation city design etc which I certainly have no objection to etc. However they will no longer mention C02 induced global warming. It very hard to get these types of people to ever admit they were wrong totally BTW so sorry guys/gals we will only get a phyrric victory LOL
As someone has already said, as a kid I used to dream of working for NASA. Now I can hardly even look at the NASA website because you have to wade through all the PC sh*te before getting to what that once great organisation should be all about. Even then, the truly inspirational stuff, the stuff that inspires our youth to achieve greatness, is found aging away in the archives. NASA has largely replaced its hero astronaut, engineer and managerial staff with tedious bureaucrats with no dreams or vision. Is it any wonder NASA has atrophied and become a haven for charlatans the likes of Hansen.
Leo Morgan says: April 10, 2012 at 11:21 am
Okay Leo, we’ve been listening to Hansen spout his Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming rhetoric for nearly three decades now. Just how long do *YOU* suggest that we need to keep considering the same failed argument before we can finally reject it?
The CAWG hypothesis has had more than enough time to “prove” itself and yet the empirical data is still not supporting it. As far as I am concerned, with all the fail predictions / projections and the massaged / manipulated data we’ve seen from GISS (and others), it’s high time we finally called BS on Hansen, Gore, Mann and all the other “CAWG high priests” and move on.
The odd thing is keeping Hansen in post and in the public eye is actual a good idea for AGW skeptics given his ‘over the top’ maddness that works only with the AGW faithful but turns off most other people .
Has any MSM picked it up yet?
Get out! *
– to borrow a phrase from Elaine Benes, a character on Seinfeld, “the show about nothing”.
* Physical moments, Seinfeld show
.
OK. Now where are the historians, anthropologists, geologists and all the other disciplines that can now re-invent the MWP and the LIA? Why are the other, retired, fruit fly professors not saying anything? It is a good thing the baby boomers will start to retire soon so that they can add their voices to the cacaphony of dissent with the “settled science”.
Hansen and Schmidt need not be under fire, they need to be fired.
By the way Anthony, as this great fraud known as global warming begins to crumble at last, and the signs have been gathering for quite a while now, we skeptics owe you a huge debt of gratitude. Where would we be without you brave bloggers?
Poll needs a fourth option:
Yes, into space.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of NASA’s retired personel this letter represents, as that could perhaps give a guide to the level of disquiet within NASA’s current workforce.
At what point does it become a critical mass that then allows current NASA employees to speak out.
This is the group we need stepping up to the microphone, the ones in the background who have been cut out of the discussion. Now the staff, retired and not, who do the GISSTemp corrections. And in Australia and New Zealand, the staffers, not the management. Currently employed.
RE: The Poll
Forget the gold watch – just pitch him out the door, via his collar and belt loops!
NASA disappoints. – gavin
This would give me hope…if I thought the MSM would report it prominently.
I hope they prove me wrong.
that’s another fine GISS you’ve gotten me into
Daniel says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:23 am
“I think this leter comes from Heartland too LOL
REPLY: No, it doesn’t and you’re an idiot for suggesting it does – Anthony”
Please tell me he simply left off the /sarc tag
“Tremendously Resourceful” would be more like it, but I have my doubts we’ll ever hear Jimbo cough it up. To say that ‘it’s about time’ is redundant. “What took them so long” is unanswerable. Will anything come of this? Now THAT’s the trillion-dollar question.
Kent S. says: “…Pay me an hundred thou a year and I’ll produce a scientific paper that says that the monkeys are causing climate change, if that’s what you want to hear.”
It will never pass peer review. It is well known that monkeys are too busy writing climate models.
Phil C says:
“Who?”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
Its about time!!!
NASA has made teaching materials available for quite some time. They must present a balanced and scientific viewpoint.
@ Steve Jones:
Concur! That’s why HobbySpace and SpaceX’s website are where you go if you want to hear the latest news or see the coolest videos.
P.S. I voted to fire Hansen outright.
This letter is not a message aimed at the MSN but rather the NASA establishment. Given the calibre of some of the names on it, NASA knows they ignore it at their peril. Stand by for some distancing of NASA from the alarmist mantra in the future and perhaps a polite suggestion to Hansen, that he can more properly devote himself to the cause full-time, by simply relinquishing his NASA responsabilities.
Pointman
[snip – over the top]
Well I have recently become aquainted with one individual, who shall remain nameless, who shared the whole NASA moon experience with these individuals; particularly the astronauts themselves (he was not one), and I can say, I am happy to see these prominent individuals come forward, and ask that the whole institution, they were part of, be not reduced to a laughing stock.
Good show Mates; let’s let the science tell the story.
This is welcome news.
Maybe the asylum is being taken back from the LUNITICS!
John West says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Phil C says:
“Who?”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
And a lot of Meteorologists:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/
“CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center”
At first glance, I read this as Chris “COLOSE”!!
Spent the next 5 minutes cleaning coffee off my keyboard……….
That’s a tough choice in the poll – his idiotic wacko environmentalist has done wonders for those who were on the fence! But in the end, I had to say give him the boot. Do gold watches come in solar powered versions – maybe a wrist sun dial would be more appropriate 😉
Houston, we have a problem…
Geo says:
April 10, 2012 at 10:39 am
Obviously these guys aren’t “real” climate scientists…..only “rocket scientists”… 😉
If there were a “science market” instead of a “carbon market”, I wouldn’t trade one rocket scientists for all the climate modelers and AGW alamrmists in the world. Not even a junior rocket scienttist.
That’s a tough choice in the poll – his idiotic wacko environmentalism has done wonders for the fence sitters. But in the end – I say give him the boot. Do gold watches come in a solar powered versions? Or maybe a wrist sundial would be more appropriate. 😉
Would that we could get a comment from Richard Feynman.
No sign anything by Black or Shukman on the BBC yet. I’m not holding my breath on it appearing any time soon.
Ed_B says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:07 am
” However, the electorate will return Pres. Obama and a Dem house due to the rediculous (sic – and hilariously ironic!) nature of Rommney (sic) running on tax breaks for the rich when he pays less income tax as a percentage than probably his hair stylist.”
Ed,
Thanks for the political climate prognostication! I’ll give it the same weight as any climate prediction from Jimmy Hansen. The republican platform is shaping up to be ‘no changes to taxes, just cut the bloated, morbidly obese federal budget’. There is nothing in it about ‘tax breaks for the rich’ (I love that empty socialist demogoguery!). If you have data that shows Romney’s personal tax rate is less than (“probably….”) his hair stylist, please present it here!
I don’t pretend to know who will win the US presidential election this November. I am, however, working as hard as I can to defeat Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist ‘green’ agenda.
MtK
Here’s another good website for space junkies:
http://spaceflightnow.com/
Hansen? Ignore him. Fire him. He is insane.
Good letter to NASA if a bit overdue. NASA needs to get out of the Climate debate; quit taking sides; and get back to data and science and let the scientific results fall as they may and the policy decisions be made by publicly elected officials.
There has been enough nonsense.
Finally. It’s about time that leaders in our country put an end to this fraud (I am not speaking personally of Hansen; I am addressing the shameful destruction both of science and of a once highly respected American institution.)
Also, couldn’t vote. Hansen deserves a trial for destroying and altering data. If (when) found guilty, he deserves a prison cell and a huge fine. No retirement for him — nor for others who have perpetrated the fraud called CAGW.
Also, thanks to Anthony, other couageous bloggers. commenters, and scientists. I hope you/we won’t stop the truth-telling until we find that no more funds are being spent for these noxious purposes. Wow! That will be alot of accounting.
“Wait now for the Bad Astronomer to poo-poo them one by one. Moon hoaxers will rejoice.”
LOL… I hope so! Why not also “escalate” the subject to Buzz Aldrin? I’m quite confident his arguments on the matter still has a lot of punch.
Schmidt responds: This is pure politics. As former employees of NASA they should know full well that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues. I note that they provide no references for the ‘unsupported’ statements that think NASA has made. Scientists who work for NASA are however expected to talk about their results, write about them and submit them for peer review. What these letter writers are asking for is for the administration to curtail the free speech rights of NASA employees that they disagree with and that is just wrong. If I asked Bolden to tell Cunningham et al to to stop spouting nonsense, I would be instantly criticised for trying to quash dissent, but these guys have no qualms about it whatsoever. The only response needed is to point these people to the NASA statement on scientific openness that was made the last time people tried to politicise discussions of NASA science. Didn’t work then, won’t work now. – gavin
I voted for the firing, but I’d exchange the gold watch for a thorough investigation of the massive outside income he has garnered in recent years which to most appearances is in clear violation of quite a number of agency rules.
Ditto! Fire his butt, and then open a Congressional investigation on Hansen’s possible misuse of NASA funds and misrepresentation and/or falsifying NASA scientific data and conclusions.
/Mr Lynn
pokerguy says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:55 am
Hear hear.
NASA needs to get back to its roots! They seem to have lost their way and this is at least a step in the right direction.
In the poll I voted for “Keep him going.” But NOT because I think he’s the sceptic’s best weapon, as I do not believe that. The truth and empirical evidence are our best weapons. The reason I want to keep him going is because to fire him would instantly make him a martyr for The Cause, and that would not be helpful at all.
Well, this is NASA. Communism goes down the drain, & what do these guys do: build a really cool space station (& let the rest of space exploration go to wreck) – and present that as a gift to the Russians: where the Yanks have to BEG for every trip they may be allowed for a view of the home planet from space – transported up in an old tin can that wasn’t even state-of-the-art 45 years ago. That firm deserves a lot more people like Hansen.
I guess the otehr 13 votes [at 1942 Z 10th April], for ‘Hansen as Hero’ are also sarcastic votes – mine most certainly was.
Interesting site on the issue of Cimate and weather.
.. – and I have had people from NASA volounteering to help with my site in different ways, and im honoured, but the demand of privacy was 1 priority (!)
So what comes from retired scientists tells a story of what they believe, but cannot say until retirement.
I’m a bit confused. The letter says: “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data”.
What thousands of years of empirical data are these? All the empirical data I know seem to show conclusively that C02 has a large impact on the climate system.
They also say: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts”. Which ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ are these?
Could someone provide a list? Otherwise I don’t think they exist. There are a few (Lindzen, Spencer etc) but the rest (Ball, Plimer etc) are hardly ‘climate scientists’ or even scientists at all!
I suspect that other NASA scientists and engineers will sign on to this letter now that its existence is known
NASAs Chief Scientist is a “Climate Scientist” specializing in propagandizing about the dissapearence of the cryosphere. When he was selected, I posted in tips, but the story was never picked up. I dont think this letter will do any good. NASAs new mission is to advance the socialist cause.
Leo Morgan says:
April 10, 2012 at 11:21 am
“Fire somebody for being wrong?
Hell no!
That’s a warmist tactic.
A voice of dissent is always needed. We might think we’re right, we might actually even be right, but we cannot know we’re right unless we’ve heard and considered every alternate argument.”
Hansen is not just a researcher who happens to be wrong. He is the gatekeeper of GISTEMP, data falsificator extraordinnaire, and earns a million a year on the side selling his doomsday prophecies via books, and getting prices from European governments who exploit his unscientific bloviations to justify the tax regime they impose on us, so he is a useful idiot for EU governments.
And your argument that we cannot know we are right until after the fact should be applied to all climate models – before they can just fudge a few constants in their programs to “explain” why they have failed for at least the last decade, force them to compare their newest model configuration FOR AT LEAST A DECADE with what happens in reality before giving ANY attention to it. Well, this would lead to a rather big dearth in climate model publications, I should think. And I would call it the precautionary principle protecting us from constant unfounded doom mongering; but the current US administration needs AGW doom mongers to justify filling the pockets of Obama bundlers with green energy loans.
NASA has long become a joke, the pork barrel habit of disassembling the “reusable” Space Shuttle after each flight, distributing the parts across the US, cleaning them, sending them back to Florida and reconstructing a Space Shuttle from them looks as if Bastiat had invented it to explain how not to do things.
The Obama administration drastically cut NASA’s budget for space exploration but increased their budget for studying climate change. They want to change the primary mission of NASA from one of science to one of government propaganda. That’s not going to change until there is a change in the administration.
This is but another form of the immortal line …
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”
This is what I believe these NASA legends are trying to say to the head administrator. When you look deep into the eyes of the climate models, nothing peers back at you. Absolutely nothing. Sad really that billions have been spent and 30 years wasted on this reckless charade into a dead alley.
Monty says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Monty,
Is James Hansen a climate scientist? Is Al Gore? Is the man in charge of the IPCC?
I said this morning (April 10, 2012 at 2:44 am) on another thread:
Oh, NASA, hero organisation of my childhood! Now can’t launch anyone into space, is controlled by pork-barrellers, and employs nuts like Hansen.
“How have the mighty fallen”.
—————————-
Excellent news from all the heroes – perhaps the mighty can now get up, brush themselves off, and cater to our greatest imaginings, not our stupidest fears.
More Harrison Schmitt, moonwalker; less Gavin Schmidt, viciously devout propogandist.
Forget Hansen, on to Mars!
And if NASA can’t, see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php which also covers SpaceX and other private space efforts.
Its hit Mainstream
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/astronauts-condemn-nasa%E2%80%99s-global-warming-endorsement/469366
@Monty
Confused? I’m not surprised.
The scam is dissolving before your eyes.
Confusing when a whole belief system (dare I say religion?) falls apart.
Even dear Jimmy (see his Edinburgh speech) realizes the jig is up – the skeptics are winning (have won?)
It was a difficult choice, especially as there was no button for:
“Fire him and then prosecute him”.
I chose firing.
-Bad News
Neo says:
April 10, 2012 at 10:45 am
He blamed sceptics who are opposed to major social and economic changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for employing “tremendous resources” to undermine the scientific evidence.
I wonder just how he defines “tremendous resources”
This is alarmist language.
“tremendous resources” means “the internet”
“to undermine the scientific evidence” – means to point flawed data adjustments, or simply saying model data is no real data
and so on…
We should build-up a dictionary to be able to communicate with alarmists. Maybe this is the whole issue? Somebody said it is communication…/sarc
Now seriously, this is great stuff and it shows that slowly people start to put things right.
John Bills said:
Schmidt responds:
“…This is pure politics. As former employees of NASA they should know full well that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues…”
I’ll agree with Gavin. All this discussion of CAGW is pur politics.
But his statement that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues is bull.
By allowing James Hansen, NASA scientist, head of GISS, to make the statements he does, they ARE making an “official” statement – if we didn’t agree with him, we’d tell him to cool it.
What other Government employee can protest in front of the White House and not get fired? James Hansen, NASA scientist, head of GISS can.
Hansen, we’ve got a problem.
It’s true that a few of the astronauts have been speaking out, but when administrative types get into the act, it gets more serious.
Hansen, we’ve got a problem.
“Sad really that billions have been spent and 30 years wasted on this reckless charade into a dead alley.” very true, and now many scientists seeing their budget going to climate science are finally starting to clue in and tell the truth, too bad the money is spend, and they will still be out of a job.
How the press will cover this…
They won’t.
The key to good propaganda is not what you say, but what you do not say.
An of course NASA will look at the many billions of dollars they get to say that CAGW is true, along with the pressure of bureaucrats who see this as a golden opportunity to get billions, even trillions more, and be able to control everything everyone does everywhere, plus the prestige they get from telling themselves that they are “saving the planet”, plus the loss of face they would get if they admit that they have been wrong all along, against this “request”.
Seems like an easy choice to me.
Let him retire, no.He has enough clear cut ethical violations, confilcts of intrest and arrests, he should have been fired with cause a long time ago.
As a retired NASA Project Manager/Project Scientist, I agree with the letter.
FWIW, my field was multi-disciplinary Engineering Science. My career involved extensive research projects on Earth, on the Shuttle, and on Space Station. This has been a good fit for understanding the issues related to testing the AGW hypothesis/hypothesized effects — and understanding how NASA culture might impact its findings.
Hansen
Mann
Keep hitting at the weak points
oh.. dont forget
Gleik
Trenberth
Gore
Lonnie
Wait…
Schmitd
Jones
Viner
damn. so many weak points, so little time
John Bills says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:37 pm
(Gavin) Schmidt responds: […Gavin’s tiresome, grandstanding comments follow, which need not be repeated…]
OK – an analogy. Let’s suppose there was an employee of a big agricultural company that did corn seed and farming research. They did their job reasonably competently. But they also used their position in seed research to coauthor journal articles on how corn farming is actually really bad for the environment, that agra-business leaders who advocated corn farming were corrupt and should be tried for “crimes against humanity,” and that people should really stop eating corn products altogether. They even collaborated with like-minded researchers from other countries under the UN funded group Intergovernmental Panel on Corn Cultivation (IPCC), releasing several scathing reports for policy makers detailing the scientific “proof” of the evils of corn farming. Eventually, they went as far as to say that future generations would be irrevocably harmed if corn farming wasn’t banned NOW, and participated in marches, protests, and political events (sometimes even being arrested for their actions). All of these activities, by the way, were done “as a private citizen not representing their employer” – and of course, we all enjoy our free speech rights in this country (except if you’re trying to submit a scientific article to the corn journals, which are overrun by anti-corn zealots who will squash any dissent from the party line).
Now, a large group of corn farmers, who know that corn farming is safe because they’ve been doing it for ages, write a letter to the company asking for the rogue employee to be fired (or at least retired). How should the company respond?
I’m amazed that the poll shows that Hansen has 18 supporters here.
Comical Jimmy’s ‘We are winning’ sounds more like Comical Ali’s ‘We are winning’.
Theme Song of the 6th Weather Radar Conference, MIT, March, 1957
More data, more data
Right now and not later
Our storms are distressing
Our problems are pressing
We can brook no delay
For theorists to play.
Let us repair
To the principle sublime
Measure everything, everywhere
All the time
For data are solid,
Though dull and though stolid,
Consider their aptness
Their matter-of-factness
Theory is confusion
A snare and delusion,
A dastardly dare,
A culpable crime.
Measure everything, everywhere,
All the time.
No need to be weary
Of the mysteries of theory.
We only must look
At the data we took.
Immediately inspired,
Grasp the answers required.
What are so rare,
As reason and rhyme?
Measure everything, everywhere,
All the time.
More data, more data,
From pole to equator;
We’ll gain our salvation
Through mass mensuration.
Thence flows our might,
Our sweetness, our light.
Our spirits full fair, our souls sublime:
Measure everything, everywhere,
All the time.
L’Envoi
It shall come to pass, even in our days,
That ignorance shall vanish and doubt disappear.
Then shall men survey with tranquil gaze
The ordered elements shorn of all fear.
Thus to omniscience shall we climb,
Measuring everything, everywhere, all the time.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~jdduda/portfolio/HistoryPPT.pdf
I voted for sending him out the door. However, seeing that this is NASA we are talking about, there should be a follow up question on what altitude to put him out the door at. I vote for 422400 feet.
A url to the press release can be found here: http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?act=Newsletter.aspx&newsletterid=53
I thank the authors of the letter for their weighty votes for realignment of GISS with objective science. Hansen is an escalating liability for the failing pseudo-scientific ideology of CAGWists.
John
See a major effort by Google to snuffle this one.
REPLY: Slashdot has already deleted the story I submitted to them, never had that happen before. – Anthony
I am disappointed that Gene Kranz’s name is not among the forty nine signers. He has just as much weight as Kraft, IMO.
First up – WOW! Sat down this morning with my cup of coffee and time at WUWT. A few shouts for joy later, an almost spilled coffee (it’s alright, I caught it) and one moggy that’s looking at me strangely, I have settled down and can reread and reread. And reread.
This is WONDERFUL!
Next… Sorry, Anthony, I am not happy with your poll. All the options are too nice. Where’s the option for an arrest? Where’s the option for making this guy go back and do his homework properly and bring out a nice big fat apology. There’s not even an option for kicking him out without the gold watch. Give us some meat, would you? Please?
🙂
Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does, and the list of ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ who don’t believe in AGW.
Looks like I might have a long wait!
Isn’t it time that NASA stopped moonlighting in the murkey politics of climate “science” and went back to their day job of exploring space?
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
You missed another option in the poll:
4. Sack him without notice or compensation, then sue him for bringing the organisation into disrepute and abuse of his position amounting to Gross Misconduct.
@Monty: You haven’t read this site long, have you?
Wonder if UniverseToday will carry this? Since some of the authors there are regular users of the “denier” word, I doubt it.
I was going to say one small step toward Mann, but I even groaned myself!
@Monty: Sorry I see that my previous one-sentence reply was unclear. Try reading articles on this and other sites regarding the issue. For example, ice cores have shown that CO2 lags temperature. A recent study purports to overthrow this long-standing result, and this site, among others, has at least one article on the topic, wherein you can find the kind of data you seek.
If you’re trolling for a soundbite reply, you won’t get it.
Monty says:
April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does, and the list of ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ who don’t believe in AGW.
Looks like I might have a long wait!”
http://www.real-science.com/laurie-david-lying-children-save-planet
Our CSIRO needs a similar letter to alter their charter from being a Government (tax) propaganda machine and back to making a contribution to science.
Meanwhile, in the middle of solar maximum, the sun is having a virtually spot free day…
@Anthony (in reply to Esteban)
They would silence us. But they’ve lost.
@eo Peter
“Why not also “escalate” the subject to Buzz Aldrin? I’m quite confident his arguments on the matter still has a lot of punch.”
I wondered what Buzz Aldrin thought following your comment:
And from wikipedia: “In 2009, Aldrin said he did not believe humans were causing current climate change: “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.”
I wonder how many of the signatories to the letter read WUWT? Hanson and others are causing NASA to be ridiculed. The wonderful success, intelligence and bravery of the signatories and others who worked so hard and took such risks to gave NASA its reputation for excellence in space is slowly being diminished by the politically driven obsession with CAGW. The men and women who signed this letter can’t be easily ignored.
“There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Um… it’s a bit late for that now. Someone’s going to have to work out how to dig NASA, the EPA, the Royal Society, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, UEA CRU, the APS and Wikipedia out of the mess they’re in. For a start……
That a lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with outright,
But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight.
Tennyson – The Grandmother.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htm
@Monty
You still don’t get it, do you?
Do you understand ‘lost’. As in ‘lose’ and ‘losing’.
Listen to your High Priest.
You can tell how big a story is by the determination of the trolls to try to shoot it down with their smug bologna. Anthony, don’t believe for a second that you didn’t play a huge roll in this tide turning development.
I’ve said this before, but I really wish someone would ask Hansen this question “If your models were being used to design and control space ships, would you, hand on heart, go up in one?”
I’ve heard appeals to authority. These guys, I accept their authority. these guys have DONE stuff.
Hansen needs to resign. He would be much happier as a full-time campaigner. As it is, I wonder when he actually WORKS, what does he actually DO?
Looks like a who’s who list of my friend’s dads growing up. Too bad my dad isn’t still alive to add his name to that list.
Monty you write:
“Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does..”
Freely RE-WRITTEN:
“Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows that my GOD cant exist even though I know he does..”
My point: You dont make science by demanding counter-evidence..!
Is it fair to demand CO2 backup evidence? Yes!
Because the heat-effect demanded from CO2 is so massive that it should be able to take temperatures on Earth to a level not seen in millions of years. That is, CO2 MUST have the ability to dominate all other climate effects.
IF CO2 had this effect, obviously we would have seen this in real evidence from ice cores etc long ago.
The fact that real evidence of CO2 mediated massive warming is not found is indeed evidence that CO2 cannot be the warming agent needed for a dangerous warming as claimed.
The alarmists has an overwhelming problem not finding any evidence for such a massive effect.
Hope you understands this, its not for fun etc. that sceptics demands evidence.
As engineer (still) working (a t high level) on the Ariane 5 program, for both French and European Agencies, I have the greatest respect for NASA’s achievements (especially for bringing Man to the Moon) and for all those guys here above (engineers, scientists and astronauts…) who made these achievements possible. But I also have to admit that NASA/GISS unbridled advocacy of AGW dogma, without the slightest evidence to support such a claim, has brought the whole NASA institution into disrepute.
NASA has achieved the highest standards in terms of models’ verification & validation.
Indeed it is just ridiculous to observe that GISS’ climate modelers have been unable to apply their own standards and that they still base their claim, about a so called catastrophic manmade global warming, on models that have never been formally validated. But the very inconvenient truth is that none of these nice climate models would be able to pass any V&V process since there outputs are daily rebutted by comparison to observed climate data.
Sincerely from France.
Eric
Sad that this had to happen, seeing the signatures of so many 40+ Year Nasa-Veterans calling to order their “Heimat”, the source of (their) pride and great scientific advances.
The squandering of Standing and Reputation of the Nasa is nothing to celebrate for.
Jud,
“How did they ever let this happen?”
Let me try to explain from some history. Some of you might have more info than I do on what I’m going to talk about – so feel free to call BS on me if your facts trump my understanding. This in no way is intended as a slam against the 99% at NASA who put man on the moon, Voyager in deep space, and Spirit and Opportunity on Mars. Those are steely eyed rocket mechanics! This is intended at the 1% who value politics and activism over the science they are paid to do and manage.
NASA has four major accidents in it’s past. Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, and Columbia.
Apollo 1 killed three astronauts in a capsule fire on the pad. An oxygen atmosphere intensified the fire. There was no escape. But let’s call that a learning moment – no sarcasm here. NASA recoiled and did the math (on slipsticks for the most part) and fixed the issues. Space is a risky business. Fire on a capsule, well, those astronauts knew the risks.
While the Apollo missions all tested the limits of man and machine, 13 was the one that carried double from the explosion to the landing. I think, for the general public, the movie about the events is probably some of the best factual theather Hollywood has done, bar none. Once again, an engineering watershed that changed how space was done.
Challenger – the beginning of the rot. I’m inclined to think that the leaders of the time couldn’t possibly believe people they trusted for cold, hard decisions based on nothing but evidence would make a decision for a purely political reason. It just wasn’t NASA. Even so, with the O rings at the point of no-go from prior evidence, the Challenger was cleared to fly. A blowtorch on a support, the support fails, the SRB pivots and breaches the Aux tank, explosion. A moment etched into the sky. A part failure? No a person failure. One lone voice saying NOOOOOOO!
The shuttle, proven in thick and thin flys again. Problems with the Aux tank foam. Columbia is holed. It makes it to space. Return is authorized. At 100,00 feet, the beams burn through, and the rest is a firery signature in the sky. Brave people die. A management and engineering error.
The rot was there then, and it is there now. The rot will continue to exist at NASA despite the best efforts of all of us. The career cost of bucking the majority, and engineering axiom, is just too high. People will make the political decision. Who in Hanson’s group will oppose him an survive at NASA. Communication is not an option. It is death.
Astronaut AGW skeptcism in poster format:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5793914205_77d27c69cc_b.jpg
I posted this below dozens of online newspaper AGW articles per day for about nine months based mostly on Tom Nelson’s news feed (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/) but also Google news searches for clone articles, worldwide. A lot of laypersons have thus seen it! What a skeptical PR coup this opportunity was compared to the old days when real PR firms targeted small newspapers nationwide with letter writing and press release campaigns. Where’s my oil money check? When it didn’t arrive, I had to get back to work. When 50% instead of 0% of political candidates suddenly adopted AGW skepticism, my work was done, though I still gain great thrill from the clean up operations being reported here.
Kudos to the signatories for speaking up.
Yahoo news has now got it re just google web
http://news.yahoo.com/former-astronauts-scientists-warn-nasa-global-warming-212500690.html but nothing on google news except wasjhington examiner
Folks here at WUWT don’t seem to understand that James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA incur a risk of being fired if-and-only-if if they see a safety concern and DON’T speak up.
To see this, just visit the web page NASA Lessons Learned, which is operated by NASA’s Chief Engineer.
This lessons-learned page reflects harsh lessons-learned for NASA:
• “There’s no scientific PROOF that cold o-rings are a risk. And the launch schedule is at-risk. So Challenger is approved for launch.
• “There’s no scientific PROOF that oxygen is a fire risk. And the launch schedule is at-risk. So Apollo 1 gantry testing is approved.
Hundreds more examples can be cited. That’s the common-sense reason why only a very tiny fraction of NASA’s astronauts and engineers signed that petition… knowing that past attempts by NASA administrators to muzzle scientists and engineers have ended in disaster.
Frankly, I think a fraud, waste and abuse investigation into Hansen’s activities is in order. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has been active in making sure that IG investigators and wistleblowers are severely inconvenienced. Probably the reason why current NASA employees aren’t saying anything – they’ll get their throats metaphorically cut.
From Monty on April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm:
Even longer since you mangled what the letter actually said into a misrepresentation:
It seems you accidentally dropped the all-important “catastrophic” qualifier from your comment.
Now if you wish to argue that CO₂, at current and reasonably-expected future atmospheric concentrations, does have the catastrophic effect “we know it does”, feel free. Be prepared to supply references.
Apparently it is the so called rocket scientists who have not assessed all the available data before putting out wild accusations in press releases.
To claim that the prediction models are inadequate is false. The models have correctly predicted temperatures since 1900.
Myth no. 6: “Climate models are unreliable ”
[Please, no free advertising. Readers can easily find that unreliable blog if they want to. ~dbs, mod.]
Dodgy Geezer says:
April 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Um… it’s a bit late for that now. Someone’s going to have to work out how to dig NASA, the EPA, the Royal Society, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, UEA CRU, the APS and Wikipedia out of the mess they’re in. For a start……”
wikipedia will just rewrite history to whatever the next version of the NPOV will demand.
If necessary, they will delete entire articles and create new ones to get rid of the editing history.
Easy.
Good on you ‘NASA’s – 49er’s’, thank you and well said.
Meanwhile………………………..”Yeah, but I thought Jim had fixed this?!”
Monty says:
”What thousands of years of empirical data are these?”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/GEOG101/Study/Images/Entire_Earth_History_Record.gif
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
” Which ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ are these?
” Otherwise I don’t think they exist.
Is that skepticism?
What would happen if you turned that skepticism toward the following?
Evidence for high sensitivity to 2xCO2.
Evidence for catastrophe without global carbon dioxide emission reductions.
Evidence for absence of catastrophe with global carbon dioxide emission reduction.
Evidence for “unprecedented” climate.
Evidence for MWP & LIA regional instead of global.
Evidence that mitigation would be more economical than adaptation.
Evidence that geo-engineering isn’t a more practical strategy than global emission reductions.
i guess the astronauts and engineers were living in a cave for the past decade or something?
nasa has a new reputation as moslem outreach and occasional autoshop for japanese cars.
anyway, nor all their untimely piety nor wit can cancel half a line of what’s been writ.
it underscores the depravity, if anything, for they are soooo too little and soooo too late.
that, is in itself, a defining act as well.
The letter was short, modest and cogent. It will be ignored by politicos within and without NASA, but, if it gets wide distribution, will have great impact.
@NikFromNYC
Posting skepticism from astronauts is like using the Pope to counter anti-religion arguments.
Celebrity worship can sway the uneducated, but not scientists. The evidence is all that matters.
NikFromNYC says:
April 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm
“Astronaut AGW skeptcism in poster format:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5793914205_77d27c69cc_b.jpg
”
Great work!
I have been flabbergasted about how once respected institutions have thrown their reputations out of the window by producing all those alarmist bogus reports.
The latest comes from MIT which is recycling the long debunked “end of the world” alarmism that the Club of Rome into basket case of super nerds.
The MIT report predicts the culling of 5 billion people due to a global depression that will hit by 2030. Of course Global Governance will be our only way out.
And yes, the predictions are based on MIT models which is why we have to take this report extremely seriously.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/global-great-depression-and-population.html
No longer send your kids to MIT for an education.
They are now the New Club of Rome.
Geo, you mean a climate scientist that counts tree rings might not be as smart as rocket scientists that can land men on the moon and return them safely to earth?
And engineers, of course.
“There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
———-
What about the concern that if CO IS a major cause of climate change and NASA does nothing then there will be the public ridicule and distrust.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/22/jim-hansen-calls-for-energy-company-execs-to-be-jailed/
=======================================
John from CA says:
April 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Its about time!!!
NASA has made teaching materials available for quite some time. They must present a balanced and scientific viewpoint.
They’ve been teaching the ridiculous AGWScienceFiction that shortwave (visible light) heats Earth’s land and oceans and claiming the real direct heat from the Sun which is physically capable of doing this, thermal infrared longwave, doesn’t reach the surface; there’s a lot to put right..
It isn’t just that they’re pushing an ideology as if it’s science by corrupting data, they’ve corrupted the basics of traditional science – deliberately dumbing down science education for children.
Here’s where I discovered their gross malfeasance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886
And as Jud said above, not just NASA, the Royal Society too.
The two greatest science institutions have made themselves a laughing stock in science, but I think it could still be put right, if enough of those who work there or are members spoke out now…
..what isn’t a solution is to let it slide and hope that it will all be put right in a few decades – they should take the lead in putting it right.
Monty says April 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm
I’m a bit confused.
Yes, we know.
DBCooper says:
“Would that we could get a comment from Richard Feynman.”
He would probably throw some cold water on NASA’s climate models and demonstrate their lack of resilence.
NASA Releases Open Government Plan version 2.0:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/apr/HQ_12-107_OpenGov_Plan.html
Harrison Schmitt who the letter defers to on the science is a former Republican senator and long time anti-environmentalist activists. He says it is all a communist plot: “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” See Wikipedia.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COAL_SURGING_EXPORTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-10-14-27-17
Maybe “death trains of coal” Hansen will blow a gasket over this report and render these complaints moot. Looks like the rest of the world, including Europe, doesn’t want to play his games with him anymore.
Walter Cunningham is with the Heartland Institute. Sorry this letter has no scientific credibility.
REPLY: Oh, please. Pieter Tans, keeper of the CO2 records for Mauna Loa, is a declared 911 Truther, you don’t see us dismissing the entire CO2 record because he has an “association” do you? Here’s a letter to the editor he co-signed:
World has lost a true, humble friend
The world has lost a true friend in Gilbert White, winner of the 2000 National Medal of Science, natural resource adviser to FDR, ecologist before the word existed, president of Haverford College, social scientist and much else he was too humble to mention.
Gil was a fearless thinker who supported ideas that were before their time, such as the project at Vote.org and ideas that many ridicule or fear, such as evidence that a few people in our government allowed or caused the 9/11 attacks. He’s the eldest in the Oct. 21, 2004, Boulder Weekly photo with us, attending a 9/11 Truth event, although we weren’t identified — see Boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html. At lunch afterward, he expressed surprise and frustration that the media simply refused to make this an issue in the coming presidential election.
Gil was pretty sure that 9/11 was treason partly because, when he was working in the FDR White House, he witnessed the congratulatory atmosphere there the day of Pearl Harbor. He believed the government had invited the attack to get people’s support to enter World War II, and that something similar happened to get Congress’ (not the people’s) support for the Bush wars.
Gilbert could have been a member of almost any elite, but he preferred non-elitists. He believed in giving power to the people rather than keeping it in the hands of any elite. He hoped that when people learned that the government was complicit in 9/11 that they’d demand the kind of participatory government you can help realize at Vote.org. That’s why we risk accusations of sullying the dead by writing this.
Steven Jones, BYU Physics professor suspended for his work with Physics911.net, and Kevin Ryan, fired from Underwriters Laboratories for speaking out, will speak Oct. 29 from 2 to 6 p.m. in CU’s Math 100, along with the founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.
EVAN RAVITZ, ROBERT McFARLAND,
PIETER TANS and MARTIN WALTER
Boulder
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20061023020522/http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/letters_to_editor/article/0,1713,BDC_2491_5065789,00.html
And here he is in a photo, he’s the one in the middle holding the banner:
http://archive.boulderweekly.com/102104/coverstory.html
Here’s his NOAA page: http://cires.colorado.edu/people/tans/
-Anthony
Michael,
Your history is good. The Navy had similar problems with submarines. They fixed it with a Quality Control Program that included (among many other things) a system of EXTERNAL audits. NASA institututed many parts of the Navy program, but not the audits. Having someone outside of your depatrment looking at your work can imporove the overall product, especially when lives are on the line. And yes, people have been sent to jail based on things found during audits.
From the astronauts’ letter: “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.” I totally agree. There is much evidence to support the stand these courageous men have taken. Global warming fanatics are pushing the myth that carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is warming up the world and will cause Armageddon if we don’t stop using fossil fuels. They also control publication of scientific articles and are blocking any contrary reports from being published as Climategate proved. Proof that their claim is false comes from Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist who used to work for NASA. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent (E&E 21(4):243-262, 2010). This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to air had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and overrides any theoretical predictions that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides any climate models that use the greenhouse effect to predict warming. These are the ones NASA GISS and its director James Hansen have been citing as their authority that warming is happening. There is actually no greenhouse warming now and there has not been any for the last 100 years. The first part of twentieth century warming started in 1910 and stopped in 1940. There was no corresponding increase of carbon dioxide at its beginning and that rules out carbon dioxide as its cause. Bjørn Lomborg attributes it to solar influence and I agree with him. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies while carbon dioxide kept increasing. There is no satisfactory explanation for this lack of warming. Suggestions that aerosols cooled the earth for these thirty years have been shown to be wrong. And there was no warming in the eighties and nineties either according to satellite temperature measurements. There was a short spurt of warming between 1998 and 2002 but it was caused by the warm water the super El Nino of 1998 carried across the ocean and not by any greenhouse effect. And there was no warming from that point to the present. That is all in accordance with the Miskolczi theory. And if you think that Arctic warming is a loophole, think again. Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm Gulf Stream water that Atlantic currents are carrying into the Arctic Ocean (E&E 22(8):1067-1083, 2011). These are the facts about global warming that fully justify the letter written by the 50 astronauts to Charles Bolden.
Yep, NASA needs to switch focus to its new Mission — Muslim Outreach. That’ll work!
The fish rots from the head.
Problem, we have a Hansen.
============
Regarding the Hansen poll: what I want to see is an honest review of his work, and in particular his outside activities, for the past decade.
If such an appraisal shows that he has not violated the terms of his employment, then it’s here’s-your-hat-what’s-your-hurry. Buh-bye Jim, enjoy your retirement.
But I’d really like to know why we should be on the hook for his pension if he’s been out buccaneering as much as it seems he has.
This is great news. I wish only that some more active members in the NASA community will follow suit and pile on. I know a lot of them agree with the general content of this letter.
Monty-
you need to catch up in your reading. Begin with the 40 or so eminent scientists profiled in environmentalist Lawrence Solomon’s book “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud.”
PS- “A lot of them” is in reference to NASA folks at JSC
From where I sit, it appears to me that in space exploration people’s safety and missions can at times depend on the skill and judgement of a single individual. NASA cannot afford to keep just one individual with such impaired scientific judgement. After so many years, how many others have they let in and allowed them to promote one another. Hansen makes me look at NASA’s occasional “accidents” in a whole new light. If they do not get rid of people like this they have no future.
Hansen is trading on the NASA name, one the signers created. In an academic setting – he’d be little more than a garden-variety nutcase. But at NASA he is automatically accorded a reputation and prominance without having to demonstrate on his own.
They say that Hansen makes these pronouncements on his own dime (declared or not) – but show me an article or press clipping where he ISN’T described as Jim Hansen of NASA. A huge conflict of interest.
He ought to be fired for cause. NASA mgmt is negligent in its duties. If it goes to court, so be it.
My faith in America as the final bastion of liberty, truth and reason has not yet died.
Perfect timing from the guys with the “right stuff” from NASA.
Hansen has just finished getting his “medal” in Edinburgh.
Now he knows where to stick it.
Michael J. Bentley:
A couple of additional comments: NASA management knew a pure oxygen atmosphere was dangerous. Too much time and money to fix. Until after.
Apollo 13 resulted from bad communication: The pad complex changed voltage and the supplier for the O2 tank heater didn’t get the info, or ignored it. So a switch failed. The NASA science & engineering staff figured out how to bring ’em back alive. That confirmed my decision to go into engineering. (was already doing that, felt much better about it.)
Challenger and Columbia were indeed bad management. They had partial o-ring failures and ignored them. The non-CFC foam on the main tank had problems, they ignored them. But no managers got the boot in either case.
One more failure, Hubble. Two primary mirrors were built, one by Kodak, one by the “other guys.” Kodak provided test data, even though not in the contract. The other guys did not. But, they were in a state with a Powerfun Senator, so management decided to use the other guys mirror. It only cost a couple billion to fix.
I rather doubt much will change because of this letter. Maybe a tiny chink in the armor.
This demands a response from NASA if they can think of one without looking irrational.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
■“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
■“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
■“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
Nothing posted at Real Climate yet. The silence will be deafening.
This letter is just another appeal to authority. There is nothing new in what is written but it is suppose to hold sway because of those writing it.
REPLY: But at least, unlike you, they have the courage and integrity to put their name to their words. Compared by that alone, your opinion isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit – Anthony
Aren’t these the same gentlemen that understood you couldn’t land on the moon using the black body calculations. My hat is off to you. Thanks for speaking up.
From my experience in Australia, a letter of this importance should be directed towards the politicians who decide. Otherwise public servants file away to oblivion.
Mike says:
April 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm
“Walter Cunningham is with the Heartland Institute. Sorry this letter has no scientific credibility.”
Warmists… razor-sharp intellects…
MwahahaaAAAA!
I bet old James ‘Handcuffs’ Hansen is apoplectic with rage (with his silly hat on), and Gavin Schmidt will be leaping up and down with a face like a slapped arse.
I get the feeling that ‘banjo time’ for all these arch-warmingists is nigh, and it’ll soon be the moment to stock up on popcorn.
{:o)
[snip – just not interested since you failed to take my advice for a timeout in the other thread – Anthony]
sceptical says:
April 10, 2012 at 5:28 pm
“This letter is just another appeal to authority. There is nothing new in what is written but it is suppose to hold sway because of those writing it.”
What they write does not have to be new; it only has to be true. The fact that Hansen et.al. have placed model output above evidence is not new; is that a reason to stop protesting it? The fact that the versions of GISS temperature record show a rather strange behaviour under Hansen is not new, is that a reason to accept Hansen’s manipulations as gospel? Do falsities become true by getting used to them?
Blink comparator of USA GISS temperatures pre 2000 vs. latest:
http://www.real-science.com/hansens-y2k-dilemma
They may though be pissing into the wind. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” and I am afraid that the paymaster wants AGW, not science.
This is great news
I hope MSM picks it up, although I have little optimism
Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds, but I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.
I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.
If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?
Climate is like an ocean liner– you have to start turning a long way before you need to be turned, or you’re going to hit the berg. I don’t think our grandchildren are going to forgive us for the delay.
@Anthony, April 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm, Reply
Tans 9/11 nuttiness is a non sequitur. We don’t seriously doubt the CO2 readings because they are easily confirmed. But this letter relies for its scientific basis on two people who have long been active in the political campaign against mainstream climate science and neither are experts in climatology. I do not agree with some of Hansen’s political views and activities, but his scientific papers are very well done. He is a climate scientist.
[snip. This article is not about other WUWT commentators. Take your hate elsewhere. ~dbs, mod.]
You guys in the states have the same problem as we have in Europe. AGW is now the largest and fastest growing sector of government expenditure. It is going to take more than one letter to put an end to it.
Not forgetting that green taxation is the governmental cash cow of our age.
It is mostly politics. So long as there is no new leadership at NASA, there will be no change in the endless advocacy for specific policy positions. Different politics, different focus. Vote in November; that is the only way to change NASA GISS.
Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds, but I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.
Can you link to some of these reports? I’d like to read them.
Good news. This post was Instalanched at 8:53PM. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
@ Michael J. Bentley
That Sir, was an exceptional analisys of how NASA has become mired in mediocraty. I believe that there are many many fine engineers and scientists within NASA right now who long to do great things, and they are looking around and realizing that their dreams on working on cutting edge projects have been sold out by managerial turf wars, homage to the status quo, and massive subcontractor perks.
To all those who dream of being part of something great, I suggest that it won’t happen in NASA anytime soon (other than JPL, and even that’s questionable at this point).
Go NewSpace!
I worked with a guy in 2005-2006, “Charlie the Tuna”…who had been a machinist working for Control Data. They made the computer on board the lunar lander. I asked him one time about the “core memory” for the lander. It was made of 1 kilobit blocks. He said he’d forgotten. THEN a week later he walked up to me and said, “I remembered! Each lunar lander had a 40 block assembly. They cost $2000 each.” (Or $80,000 in 1966-68 money or about $800,000 now!)
Now these guys WENT TO THE MOON AND BACK with computers so basic, the PC I’m working on now makes them look NO BETTER THAN AN ABACUS.
Here’s the problem…”temporal provincialism”. I.e., “We are at the PEAK of our powers/intellect/progress RIGHT NOW, and everything is going to go downhill (i.e., Hansen and company, “The world is going to hell…..woe are WE…”,) and everyone before us were a bunch of primatives, and can be ignored.
Truth is, the guys that WENT TO THE MOON WITH AN ABACUS, and also (another example), designed, built and flew the P-51 in 187 days…just may, JUST MAY, on a “bad day” be 10 to 100x’s the “man” you are Dr. Hansen. Dismissing them because of their age and being “out of their time”, is done completely at your peril. (“Study the past, those who do NOT are doomed to repeat it..” – Aristotle.)
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”
Afetr 15 years plus of this…you bet I’m staying put.
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.”
You mean like the melting of the sea ice?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
(In case you’re not capable of reading the graphs – it’s above average globally.)
“Climate is like an ocean liner– you have to start turning a long way before you need to be turned, or you’re going to hit the berg. I don’t think our grandchildren are going to forgive us for the delay.”
You must think you’re mighty important if you think our grandchildren will still worry about the greatest scientific hoax of all times.
Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter? The playbook instruction on this one is fairly easy, even for them – do a few ad homs, say something, anything outrageous, just get the bloody discussion off the damage that a letter signed by NASA royalty is doing to the cause.
Of course, for Hansen at al, the problem is that so many of the signatories on this letter are “connected” people and for an organization like NASA, which lives or dies at the whim of politicial largesse, these people definitely have to be listened to, especially in a year when there’s going to be a change in which party will be running the country at year’s end. Ain’t democracy wonderful?
Tough times to be a troll.
Pointman
Thanks to these brave old guys… brave when they were young, and brave still.
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“…”
_______________
Rhea, where to begin…
”
“Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds…”
________________
The very nature of scientific skepticism is to not approach issues/problems with preconceived notions. You’ve “obviously” misinterpreted what you see here.
“I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse.”
______________
You have that exactly backwards… real world results invariably refute the models predictions.
Feel free to post any data to support your assertion, otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.
“Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from
now, but it’s happening already.”
_______________
I’m not sure where you came up with that, but again, <i.post data/studies supporting your claim here and prove it, otherwise, you will be viewed as just another proselyte without a clue, or worse, a propagandist.
rhea3: “many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse.”
Not one single model predicted the no warming of the last 15 years. So your statement is not based on facts. BTW, what is the forcing that caused the cooling of the last 15 years if it was able to completely negate the warming caused by humans? CO2 is going up, but not temperatures. How can there be warming without warming?
“I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.”
What evidence is that? If you have evidence, share it.
And your analogy is flawed. You immediately assume that everyone needs someone else to be told what to believe. There are brilliant minds on the skeptics side that ARE climate scientists. There are also people who have higher education and can look at the data on their own. This is why it’s the people with MORE education that are against AGW.
According to its website, “The JSC civil service workforce consists of about 3,000 employees, the majority of whom are professional engineers and scientists” (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/about/jobs.html). So I am not sure why we are supposed to be so excited that 49 former such employees, whose expertise to comment on climate science has not been elaborated upon in any way, signed onto this letter.
True skeptics would be asking to find out more about their qualifications…and also asking how many others were contacted who decided not to sign or were purposely not contacted because they were known not to be of the correct political ideology to make it likely that they would want to sign.
Hansen needs a cell padded or otherwise.
And a heart felt thank you to the signers of this letter.
Pointman says: “Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter?”
There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?
Reblogged this on contrary2belief.
There goes Joel Shore again with another “ideology” comment. And he still doesn’t understand that “true” skeptics is redundant: either someone is a skeptic, or a True Believer. As a charter member of the planet’s idiocracy, Joel Shore is in the latter category.
What they are basically saying is that when the predictions from a idea disagree with measurements from nature then the idea is wrong; and that NASA should alter their communications to underscore this fact; and spend at least as much time pointing out where the idea is in conflict with measurements from nature as they spend pointing out the consequences of the idea as if idea were not in conflict with the measurements from nature.
Who says it is irrelevant. It is what science is.
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.
I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.
If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”
The only looming catastrophes in our future are the ones that will result if the climate alarmists are able to implement more of their pernicious plans to futilely try to influence the climate with their useless carbon restriction policies. Nothing that has been attempted or proposed in that regard has the slightest chance of accomplishing anything meaningful to change our future climate, but from biofuels to wind turbines to solar panels, to shutting down existing electrical generation we have already paid a heavier price in human misery and environmental harm than could be levied by the worst case scenario of climate catastrophe you might select. The probability of that worst case is nowhere near 90%, but is closer to your getting struck by lightning or maybe to winning the lottery. There has indeed been a flood of alarmist “science” in recent years but is all generally as convincing as someone suggesting I really should be People magazine’s next selection for “Sexiest Man Alive’.
Looks like the Real Climate trolls are coming out. You know this is striking a nerve.
joeldshore says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?”
For a letter with no substance that is quite a herd of trolls. It hurts, doesn’t it? Hope you all get defunded.
I have to admit, I like it when a troll calls out to me. It’s perverse I know, but ignoring them is such a sweet pleasure, as the Bard would say. It’s best to think of them in a conceptual troll cage, howling at you ever louder for attention. They so desperately wish to engage your attention, it’s almost touching but not quite.
Never mind, there are so many better things to do with one’s time than responding to their calls for recognition.
Pointman
Given the choices I voted to fire him and give him a gold watch, but my real choice would be to fire him and give him a kick in the butt.
Let me tell you how this is going to go from here to the end of the global warming movement. This is going to mirror the end of the McCarthy era. The warmists are going to come out in full strength against these scientists and astronauts – who are heroes to the American public – and that will be their final mistake. Like McCarthy, whose arrogance made him believe he could smear the Army – the heroes of World War II and Korea – the warmists are going to try to smear these NASA heroes. You will see op-eds in the New York Times – especially Krugman – condemning these men and women, and with that public opinion will permanently shift against the warmists. They’re about to be left in the dustbin of history.
Pointman says:
April 10, 2012 at 7:12 pm
“Never mind, there are so many better things to do with one’s time than responding to their calls for recognition.”
Pointman, I like to answer them, not because I can persuade them of anything but because other readers might get something useful out of my answer. Just a good opportunity to throw some links around.
The trolls are probably in their majority in one way or another rent-seekers of the global AGW industry; a postdoc here, a renewables industries lobbyist there, and would like to keep their cosy do-nothing jobs. Boys, you will all lose it and you better get ready for jumping ship, but I guess you all know that already…
These fine engineers and scientists are going to be writing letters for a very long time if they wish to address the scientific institutions, societies, unions and associations which have been commandeered by AGW advocacy masquerading as science.
May I suggest landing a live astronaut on Venus instead? The mission should have the finest scientific payload for observation of Venus’ abundant lightning and 900F terrain, and of course, the astronaut should come home safely – not fried, poisoned, squashed or corroded. It might be a much easier task for them.
This will go nowhere. Saw one meteorologist, lots of engineers (not scientists), some directors and astronauts. At least some lists put out in the past had actual scientists in them, even if they weren’t climate scientists.
rhea3 says:
“I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already. I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.”
Rhea, you haven’t actually been following any of this, because the data has made it clear that the alarmists’ predictions have not been coming true. There is no proof whatsoever that manmade climate change is occurring. I’m not condemning you, however. I understand it must be difficult coming to terms with the fact that your religion has just been made up by people trying to tax the hell out of you.
“If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?” The logical fallacy in such statements are so blatantly obvious it’s a wonder such people can hold down a job. If this is the logic of “climate science,” count me out.
NASA’s decline which Michael J. Bentley outlined was punctuated by the Challenger disaster. Richard Feynman was part of the investigative team brought in from outside of NASA and his comments were relegated to an appendix for political reasons.
Feyman’s closing sentence:
AGW Isn’t true yet. It might be but we don’t care. Because at his point in time it most certainly is not. NASA does have credibility which can dissappear once it becomes a cover for abuse. We’ve been abused and the architects of the climate of suppresion should go. Science has no place for such……Um….Goebells, Goering: quickly, what’s the bloody word i’m trying to think of here???
Dave Wendt says:
April 10, 2012 at 7:06 pm
rhea3 says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.
I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.
If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”
______________________________________________________________________________
If some moron with no track record of being right, and no scientific bases to say that, like the idiot who said twice that the world would end last year, said that a cat 4 hurricane was coming, no I would not listen to him. Hansen has no scientific bases for saying the things he does. Nor did I listen to the morons who said that Y2K would be a big deal. Hansen is alarmist, he is no where near being a meteorologist. Meteorologists use science, not voodoo.
We have a great advantage in predicting hurricanes. We have satellites, some of which were launched by some of the same people who signed the letter. We can see in real time where the hurricanes are. All we have with the like of Hansen are computer models. Models that don’t reflect the known reality. It is as if meteorologists had to rely on satellite photos that showed hurricanes being thousands of miles from where they really were. Would you believe them, just because they were “experts.” I hope not.
Gail Combs says:
April 10, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Hansen needs a cell padded or otherwise.
And a heart felt thank you to the signers of this letter.
—————————————————————–
Yes Gail. Well said. Imagine how betrayed they feel. How the Amateurs have destroyed their legacy. What a shame it has to come to this but kudos to them!!
So Lazyteenager, what you are saying is, based on the evidence, that increasing CO2 is the cause of NO increase in hurricanes, NO increase in tornadoes, NO increase in temps over the past decade, NO increase in extreme weather events, and more. Right?
@rhea3
Even if this CO2 thing were to be true, do you honestly believe we can do anything about it?
I strongly doubt chocking to death human society for an unproven theory is very rational.
Are you aware that poverty, desease & hunger are a cause to revolution, war… And I’m quite sure this is not just a theory!
Also have you heard that it is possible that a very big meteorite can fall out of the sky & create such a catastrophe that the CO2 thing is nothing to compare? Still we do not put immense ressource at solving the meteorite problem. Here againt this is not just a theory but a question of when it will happen.
In fact there are multitudes of cataclysmic events that can happen, do we need to run like headless chicken? The Earth has seen many events & will see many others…
Don’t you believe there exist temperature regulation mechanisms within Earth’s atmosphere based on the water cycle. If the Earth system were such an unstable system how can it resist a multitude of perturbations & keep climate “compatible” w/t human life? How can minuscules human contribution of CO2 vs major natural source can impact to cataclysmic proportion a system w/t such robustness? What to do w/t the next glaciation? They are cyclic you know & we’re due for the next one. Ice age are good exemple of a nasty hysteresis effect, it push the regulation system at its limit then bang. Does CO2 push us away or closer to the limit of regulation?
You are right to care for the future, but please consider the whole problem & don’t just take for granted speculation coming from peoples that ask for tax money, but will refuse to show the details of their calculations & data, use deception & lie to validate their dogma. Remember that their version change constantly to fit the theory: Hotter than normal = CO2, its colder than normal = CO2 again…
On a more speculative level, do you think humans were created to “serve” planet Earth or in fact the planet’s goal was to give birth to humanity, like if the universe was striving to make itself conscious thru us? Very weird question indeed.
When I was a graduate student at Columbia University in the ear4ly 1970’s an article was published in Science (July 1971, 138-141) whose title was “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols:.Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” which calculated the effect of CO2 and
aerisols on global temperature. The conclusion was that we were probably heading for an ice age. Although he was not an author on the paper, the person who performed many of the calculations was none other than James Hansen. (Ref. 16. J. E. Hansen, personal communication. We are indebted to Dr. Hansen for making these Mie scattering calculations for us),
rhea3 says: April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you”
Evidence would be measured data from nature.
Computer model output is not measured data from nature.
Show me the data from nature that falsifies the null hypothesis on climate changes.
OR
Show me any directly measured data from nature that supports the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
I know that there is lots of actual data that specifically contradicts the predictions of the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
Got any supporting data?
You realize, of course, that whatever you do to him will cause him to be declared a martyr (both by himself and his followers). The last time he was told to follow proper procedures for a federal employee speaking in public he immediately responded by traveling around the world declaring he was being repressed. Sort of like the peasants in the Monty Python sketch.
Gee, what to do?
1- FIre him.
2- Destroy his hat.
3- Prescribe him a high colonic hourly for a month–he’s so full of it, he needs thorough cleansing.
4- Remove his ill-gained profits, as it is immoral to gain from lying.
5- Have him apologize and explain the real science publicly, three times a day—once each on TV, radio and newspaper—UNTIL the EPA reverses its ruling against CO2
6- Finally, let him keep whatever is left and retire.
Maybe the poll at the end of this story can be amended with an additional answer:
Arrest James Hansen for fraud and misappropriation of public funds.
joeldshore says: April 10, 2012 at 6:41 pm
“True skeptics would be asking to find out more about their qualifications”
Written like a true warmist:
“Thar she blows, Man the wiki, Ready the Ad hominem, Fire at Willis”…
Actually we don’t care who says:
“If the measurements from nature conflict with the prediction made by the idea then the idea is wrong”
We just would like more people to say it.
Richard says:
“This will go nowhere. Saw one meteorologist, lots of engineers (not scientists), some directors and astronauts. At least some lists put out in the past had actual scientists in them, even if they weren’t climate scientists.”
Um, Richard, I hate to break this to you, but… an engineer is a scientist. Most astronauts and the directors had advanced engineering degrees, making them scientists as well. They do not need to be climate scientists to know that climatologists have not been honest.
The seriously wonderful thing about this letter is that people in the right places are standing up and saying “Enough is enough.” This is a letter to NASA. It’s not a letter to the world (although I’m sure it will become one) and it’s not trying to stop all of the nonsense out there with an instant fix.
It’s a piece in place, an important piece in place. As more and more people come forward, more and more again will come forward. These wonderful people don’t have to bring the glabal warming scam to an instant halt for this letter to be a success. It is a success in its own right, right now.
I do expect more and more organizations to follow this example, not overnight but it will come. The disatisfaction is already out there behind closed doors. These people are saying “No, we will not be put forward as part of your consensus. We will not put up with this nonsense any longer.”
I might just open a bottle of champagne tonight. No. Make that two. 🙂
Pamela Gray says:
“So Lazyteenager, what you are saying is, based on the evidence, that increasing CO2 is the cause of NO increase in hurricanes, NO increase in tornadoes, NO increase in temps over the past decade, NO increase in extreme weather events, and more. Right?”
Lazyteenager would be correct. The most severe storms of the century were in the ’30s and ’40s, when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was a lot less than it is today. Therefore, there is no known correlation between CO2 and severe storms. In addition, the total power output of the human race is 16TW a year. The minimum strength of a hurricane is about 50TW. It would require four straight years of all the energy production created by mankind, concentrated in a single locale and with none being radiated into space or contributed to any other storm, to produce a single hurricane. Based on that alone it shouldn’t be hard to figure out that unless CO2 is a miraculous perpetual motion machine, it has had zero effect on our climate.
Hansen has never formally debated any skeptic in front of an audience. He needs to cease his stupid public relations appearances at protests and debate someone of substance like Lindzen or Monckton.
Unfortunately, there’s one thing that prevents him from doing that: He’s an intellectual coward.
NASA has two stowaways on board, and it needs to jettison them.
This is my favorite Alarmist prediction:
“The frightening models we didn’t even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true,” Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect – the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.
According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
“And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.
The Arctic, considered to be the barometer of global climate change, is warming faster than expected and this could cause global average temperatures to rise still more.
Fortier stressed that 90,000 square metres of sea ice melted in 2007, a spectacular figure that was expected to be seen in only 15 to 20 years.
“The most unbelievable thing is the total absence of ice in straits where you never thought you would ever be able to navigate. The changes are not progressive anymore, they are dramatic,” he said.
The great melting, uncovering vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean, will open up the Northwest Passage as a shortcut to Asia, something explorers have been dreaming about since Christopher Columbus reached America.
“In the near future, the Arctic (Ocean) will play … the same role the Mediterranean Sea played in the antiquity. So it’s very important that Canada gains control on this huge region,” he added.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
Zeke says:
April 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm
“May I suggest landing a live astronaut on Venus instead? The mission should have the finest scientific payload for observation of Venus’ abundant lightning and 900F terrain, and of course, the astronaut should come home safely – not fried, poisoned, squashed or corroded. It might be a much easier task for them.”
There goes the old Venus canard again, Zeke, one would have expected better from you. Venus has no hydrological cycle, a much thicker atmosphere and more insolation… Please explain why Mars is so cold. It has 95% CO2 in the atmosphere.